In Re Conroy’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1111 · 11 U.S.C. § 503 · 11 U.S.C. § 541
Relies on Chateaugay Corporation v. Ltv Corporation Ltv State of New York · Jartran Inc Reuben Donnelley Corporation · Dant Russell Inc Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. Dant & Russell Inc · In Re Jartran Inc Fruehauf Corporation · Lancaster v. Tennessee
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“10% of the amount paid for the response action or the actual costs, whichever is greater.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.